\n<\/p>\n
A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court, in its recent landmark judgment of <\/span>Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>had unanimously held that a committee comprising the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and the Leader of Opposition of the Lok Sabha should advise the President in the election of the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners of the Election Commission. The apex court has, therefore, altered the present mechanism of selection, which includes the President electing the Chief Election Commissioner, on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers, which is headed by the Prime Minister.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The bench comprising of Justices KM Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar were adjudicating the matter of a writ petition, filed by the petitioner Anoop Baranwal, regarding reforms in the process of the Election Commission appointments. The decision was given on the <\/span>reasoning <\/span><\/a>to ensure the reduction of the influence of the executive in matters pertaining to the appointment of members of the Commission.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The Election Commission of India is an <\/span>autonomous constitutional authority <\/span><\/a>responsible for administering Union and State election processes in India. It<\/span> operates under the authority of Constitution\u00a0as per <\/span>Article 324<\/span><\/a>,\u00a0and subsequently enacted\u00a0<\/span>The Representation of the People Act, 1951<\/span><\/a>. <\/span><\/span>This decision is imperative because of the fact that it changes the composition of the members of a body having the <\/span>primary responsibility<\/span><\/a> of<\/span> <\/span>direction, superintendence, and control of elections<\/span> for the President, Vice President, Parliament, as well as the State Legislatures. In this article, there<\/span> <\/span>shall be an analysis on what grounds the judgment was given by the apex court, as well the reasoning for the same.<\/span><\/p>\n Though the initial <\/span>PIL was filed in 2015<\/span><\/a> by Anoop Baranwal, the Supreme Court had acknowledged to hear the second PIL, which was <\/span>filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay in October 2018<\/span><\/a>\u00a0subsequently referring the matter to a Constitutional Bench. It was done so to scrutinize Article<\/span> 324<\/span><\/a> of the Constitution, which deals with the mandate of the Chief Election Commissioner. <\/span><\/span>The court had not deliberated on this issue earlier and <\/span>a closer examination was required as our constitution <\/span><\/a>does not lay down any specific legislative process, which outlines the manner in which the Chief Election Commissioner and the two Election Commissioners are to be appointed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In September last year, the bench, headed by Justice KM Joseph, started hearing the matter, and the verdict was subsequently reserved almost a month later. The <\/span>verdict was finally delivered on 2nd March, 2023<\/span><\/a>, ordering the constitution of a committee which would appoint the members of the Commission. However, it is important to note that the Parliament can still, by law, make provisions as to the appointment of the members, nullifying the effect of the judgment as such powers are vested under its aegis by the virtue of <\/span>Article 324(2)<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n One of the cornerstones on which the decision is made is \u201cfreeing the Election Commission from the grudges of the Executive.\u201d Earlier, only the President, on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers (headed by the Prime Minister), was empowered to elect the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioner. This raised many questions regarding the functioning, transparency and the independence of the Election Commission as the executive had a major say in the appointments of the 3-member body.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n This was particularly evident during the last day of the hearing of the judgment, where the Constitution bench reserved the judgment, where it had questioned the<\/span> \u201clightning speed\u201d<\/span><\/a> with which the file of Arun Goel, being elected as the Election Commissioner, had been carried out by the government. The procedure, from start to finish, had taken less than 24 hours.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n In its long 378-page judgment, the court has extensively looked at the Constitutional Debates in order to arrive at the verdict. It opined that the words “subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by the parliament\u201d in<\/span> Article 324<\/span><\/a> were added deliberately after the discussions had taken place.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cFounding Fathers clearly contemplated and intended that Parliament would step-in and provide norms, which would then govern the appointment to such a uniquely important post as the post of the Chief Election Commissioners and the Election Commissioners\u201d, <\/span>the court noted<\/span>. <\/span>On the basis of this, it noted that wherever such a phrase had been used by the Constitution, a law had been framed by the parliament on such an issue.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n However, it was not a case here as there exists no law regarding the appointment of the Election Commissioners till date, even after 75 years of our country\u2019s Independence. Despite various voices being made on the issue, and the Founding Fathers contemplating it, the Parliament was <\/span>unable to make a law <\/span><\/a>on how the Election Commissioners are to be appointed. Hence, the apex court asserted that absence of such a law creates a void or a vacuum, which it then went on to fill.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n It observed <\/span>that the Election Commission of India, having to perform the arduous and laborious task of conducting elections to four crucial functionaries of the democracy, has to remain aloof from all forms of subjugation and interference by the executive in its functioning. The court had also deliberated on two other aspects- the grounds for the removal of the Election Commissioners and their tenure, in its judgment.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Therefore, the judges concurred that in order to ensure free and fair elections, there should exist a collegium like system, which is far more representative in the matters pertaining to\u00a0appointments. It is also evident from the judgment where Justice KM Joseph had opined that;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cPurity of the election process must be maintained to preserve democracy, otherwise it would lead to disastrous consequences.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The court, by altering the pre-existing mode of appointing the Election Commissioners, is correct in asserting the fact that there exists a need for an independent panel for appointments in order to ensure proper functioning of a fiercely independent and impartial election regulatory body, as envisaged by our Constitution. The involvement of all three organs of Parliament \u2013 Judiciary, Executive and the Legislature, would ensure transparency, autonomy and impartiality in the functioning of the Election Commission, which would further the ideals as envisaged by our Democracy.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n